MOHAMMAD HANIF Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Hari Om Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by respondent no. 2/ Tahsildar, Sadar, District Bulandshahar.

(2.) ON 15.03.2013, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in this matter apprising the Court that under which provision of law, the impugned order has been passed on an application without there being any notice to the affected party. Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the entry of the petitioners' name has been expunged from the revenue record as the same was recorded without there being any valid title. Further, they have no right / title over the land in dispute and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. For appreciating the controversy, it would be useful to go through the impugned order dated 25.06.2012 passed by respondent No. 2, which is reproduced herein under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...